In Depth

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a juvenile court’s order of restitution, stating the court failed to investigate
the young man’s ability to pay, and that the damage amount could not be determined to be reasonable. Judge Melissa S.
May agreed with the majority, but wrote an eight-page separate opinion stating that the trial court’s many errors –
including the omission of key pieces of evidence – hampered the COA’s ability to perform its review of the case.

In J.H. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1005-JV-560, the state dropped a criminal mischief allegation
when the juvenile defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful residential entry. The teen had tried to enter a neighbor’s home
without permission and, in doing so, had damaged the door.

The neighbor had presented two estimates for repair – a first estimate of $1,000 and a second for $1,117.65. The estimates
were not submitted to the defense, did not show the cost of materials and labor, and were not entered into evidence. The defense
challenged the validity of the estimates and requested a dispositional hearing to question the first contractor about his
estimate, but he did not appear for the hearing. The appeals court held the juvenile court failed to recognize that it is
the state’s burden to prove the validity of the estimates.

In her separate opinion, Judge May wrote about the lack of completeness of the record. In a footnote, she wrote about the
missing repair estimates: “If something is purported to be ‘evidence’ to establish an amount being claimed
for restitution, the party seeking to use it should ensure it can be provided to the court and opposing counsel. Counsel presumably
could have found a copy machine.”

She said the clerk had obviously failed to provide the documents necessary for the counsels to prepare their briefs. She
also questioned why the victim’s impact statement – which had been scanned into the court’s case management
system – was not part of the record on appeal.

In summary, Judge May wrote, “While I concur with the majority’s result, our decision must be read in light of
the procedural missteps by trial counsel, the clerk, the trial court, and appellate counsel, as I have noted herein. These
issues are not unique to this case, and are troubling when liberties are at stake.”

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.